[CentOS] Red Hat CEO: Go Ahead, Copy Our Software

Fri Aug 16 17:37:15 UTC 2013
Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org>

On 08/16/2013 12:12 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> wrote:
>>>> OK you are really that stupid
>>>> the GPL doe snot talk about binaries at all
>>> Exactly my point.  Everything is about derived works.  So binaries
>>> cannot be exempt from the requirement that the work as a whole can
>>> only be distributed under a license that permits free redistribution
>>> and that additional restrictions cannot be added.  If you want to
>>> refute that, please quote the section stating what you think permits
>>> it.
>> You CAN distribute both the Source and the Binaries under the GPL.  You
>> CAN'T do that and be in accordance with the Terms of Service for RHN.
> Really?  Are none of the trademark-restricted additions packaged into
> GPLed items?  Or is redistributing the trademark OK as long as nothing
> is changed?   If you could obtain a copy and didn't care about RNH,
> could you ship straight RH binaries instead of rebuilding?
>> So, you get to decide what you want to do.  RHN is the customer portal
>> that gives you access to help, updates, support, etc.
> It is all sort of a technicality anyway without an update source.
> Given the vulnerabilities that are always shipped, it would be
> somewhat insane to run the code at all without a reliable source of
> updates.  Which I thank CentOS for providing...

There are a couple of packages that you have to modify to "distribute"
as they are not GPL.

I was talking about in general terms and specifically about GPL items. 
Each program has it's own restrictions and license.

This is why we rebuild each and every program and redistribute those,
then we only need to meet the trademark requirement. (and not the portal
requirement or the RHEL EULA).

My point was, there are two things at play if you distribute the
original content (either Binary or Source) and that is the copyright of
each individual program and the license for access to the upstream
services.  You agree to both, not just the copyright.  Others have also
said this.

Here are the 3 things in play:



Use of portals/content (RHN):

Of course, this list is not a compliance discussion area for upstream
... talk to your attorney if you have any questions :)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20130816/acbae56e/attachment-0005.sig>